HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-05-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Sessional Orders

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:55): I move, pursuant to order:

That for the remainder of the session sessional orders be adopted for eligible persons, leave of absence and no stranger admitted to the body of the house, as detailed in the sessional orders circulated to members.

Mr J.B. TEAGUE (Heysen) (17:56): I move to amend the motion by adding the following paragraph, which will be numbered 6, as I understand it:

6. Once a notice of the question has been given and placed on the Notice Paper pursuant to standing order 102, an answer to the question shall be delivered to the Clerk pursuant to standing order 103 not more than 30 days after the date on which it had first been printed on the Notice Paper.

Those words will be familiar to those members who were present as members of the house during the Fifty-Fourth Parliament. It was a sessional order introduced by the Marshall Liberal government, and an effective reform it was too.

I might just indicate that the introduction of the sessional order was the subject of some surprise to me, that it was not simply an oversight by the Malinauskas Labor government on coming to power and that it was not then extended without further ado. I checked on my question with the Manager of Government Business earlier today to be sure it was not something the government wanted to take the chance to introduce. The indication was that, no, the government did not want to introduce it, so it was a conscious omission rather than an unconscious omission.

What we have seen is that on the first day of the Fifty-Fifth Parliament, on the return to power of Labor, what do they do? They move to remove accountability and transparency in government that we saw so effectively introduced by the Marshall Liberal government in 2018. The statistics bear it out. In the Fifty-Third Parliament, 2014 to 2018, I am advised that the total number of questions on notice was 939—and, I am sure, meritorious questions they were too. Of those 939 questions in the house in the course of the 2014 to 2018, the Fifty-Third Parliament, 287 were answered and 652 of them were not answered. That is 30.6 per cent.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr J.B. TEAGUE: The member for West Torrens interjects and makes light of the topic. Bear in mind this is the first day of the Fifty-Fifth Parliament.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr J.B. TEAGUE: This is the first day of the Malinauskas Labor government, and I have indicated that the last time Labor was in power we saw 30 per cent of questions on notice answered. One might say that is a problem begging for reform, that is a problem seeking an accountability answer, that is a problem looking for an improvement. One might have thought, 'Well, a good government following on that kind of low level of performance might look towards measures to improve.'

I can tell you that very shortly after the commencement of the Fifty-Fourth Parliament in May 2018 the Marshall Liberal government introduced a sessional order in precisely these terms with the result was that—and wait for it—over the course of the Fifty-Fourth Parliament there were, and I have to hand it to the opposition, 2,394 questions were asked, 2,365 of them were answered, 29 were not, for a total of 98.7 per cent response.

Those of us who are interested in the performance of this house, in good governance, in transparency, would say that it is as clear as day that on the coming to power of the Malinauskas Labor government, on day one, when we introduced all the arrangements that are going to apply for the Fifty-Fifth Parliament ahead, they would be quick to carry this on.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, I am surprised that they were not made standing orders of the parliament so successful was the outcome from the Fifty-Third to Fifty-Fourth Parliament. I have not heard anybody make the case for, 'Oh, well, you couldn't possibly apply that again,' but, no, they have been omitted. This has come as no surprise to anyone here: they have been omitted consciously.

Those members opposite who are new to the place might just have a think not only about what we have heard in question time about, where the government is at and what the agenda is all about, but also about when the rubber really hits the road on government accountability where is the government, where is the Malinauskas Labor government on truly wishing to provide prompt, thorough, transparent, good government. It is not interested. It is clearly not interested.

Ms Stinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Badcoe is called to order. The member for Heysen has the call.

Mr J.B. TEAGUE: I am loath to use colourful language, but one might say that what we see on this first day of the Fifty-Fifth Parliament, this first day of the Malinauskas Labor government, is really nothing short of the display of a contempt for those opposite, those who would ask questions of the government and seek to hold it to account. More broadly, it is a conscious hit to government transparency and I sit here and ask the question why.

I would be delighted to hear from anyone on the other side if there is a reason for the Malinauskas Labor government consciously tearing up this very successful sessional order procedure for ensuring that questions on notice are answered promptly. Remember, for the Fifty-Third Parliament, 30 per cent of questions on notice were answered and for the Fifty-Fourth Parliament, 98.7 per cent of questions on notice were answered and answered promptly.

Does the Malinauskas Labor government have something to hide? Is the Malinauskas Labor government in these early days already not confident in its capacity to answer questions on notice on time?

Ms Stinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Badcoe! Interjections are disorderly.

Mr J.B. TEAGUE: Is it not able to go about answering questions from the opposition? I am a bit astounded that it would leave itself open to these sorts of questions on day one of the Fifty-Fifth Parliament. So we do not know. We have not been given any explanation. We sought one out. We gave the Leader of Government Business plenty of opportunity to explain, 'Well, no, no, we've got a better idea: we are going to answer in 15 days,' or, 'We are going to answer in 10 days,' or, 'We are going to have a brand-new system that will keep it online and make sure that we improve even more'—no. It is simple: they have just jettisoned it altogether. So the people of South Australia will be asked, 'Well, let's see if it is unnecessary.'

Mr Brown interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Florey!

Mr J.B. TEAGUE: Let's see if it is unnecessary, because the record of the government in the Fifty-Third Parliament, the last time Labor was in power, was 30 per cent. It might be easy to do better than 30 per cent. Let's see 98.7 per cent. Let's see it unnecessary. Clearly, the Malinauskas Labor government does not have the courage of its convictions to hold itself to the same level of accountability that the Marshall Liberal government did when it came to answering questions, so those questions will just stay out there. Do they have the confidence? Clearly not. Do they have the capacity? We will see. They clearly have not got the confidence to project it.

There is some indication that this is a conscious omission. To those on the other side and particularly those who are new to this place, I urge you to support the amendment. I urge you to continue what was uncontroversially productive reform introduced in the last parliament and support this amendment, together with those other meritorious sessional orders that have been proposed by the Leader of Government Business.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (18:06): It gives me great pleasure to rise and discuss this. The government will not be supporting the amendment. There is an old saying: do not look at the quantity; look at the quality of those answers.

I was here for the Fifty-Third and Fifty-Fourth Parliament. There was a very short gap in between the two governments. In the Fifty-Fourth Parliament, the government brought in a sessional order for a change to have questions answered on notice within 30 days. Interestingly, for the brief time that they held a majority in this house—a constitutional majority in this house in the Fifty-Fourth Parliament—they did not amend standing orders to entrench it.

It is pretty clear to anyone who was paying attention that they had baked in that second term. They were thinking that in the next term it is just a sessional order; it is not a standing order where you need an absolute majority to change it. So I will not be lectured by people who brought in a sessional order and are then saying this should be a permanent change but, when they had an opportunity, they never made it a standing order change.

If the principle is so important to members opposite, why did they not amend standing orders? The truth is the Malinauskas Labor government aspires to answering many questions. We look forward to answering as many questions as we can for a long, long period of time. We enjoy answering the questions, and members opposite like asking them. This is the natural state of things—where we are now—and I think it is important we remember that the parliament will be judged on its merits. Every government will be judged on its merits. As the last government was judged on its merits, we will be judged on ours.

I am more than happy to commit to my shadow ministers that I will get back to them as quickly as possible. I am not going to meet some arbitrary time line. I want to get them the facts. I want to get them the answers that they are looking for. I actually think we have an opportunity in this parliament that we did not have in the last parliament to get some constructive bipartisan work going.

The member for Hartley is someone for whom I have a great deal of regard. I think he is actually a very good parliamentarian and a very decent person. I would not have voted for him and I do not like his policies, but I think he is someone who is prepared to work hard for the people of South Australia, so I want to work collaboratively with him. When he asks me questions, it will not just be formal ones, the ones that are political, to be on notice. There will be questions that he will ask me by SMS, that he will ask me over the telephone. We will get the answers to them and that is the type of relationship I think we need to have between shadow ministers and their counterparts.

There is a role for the parliament, but the best outcomes are brought together when we work collaboratively. This type of adversarial process you are trying to put in—I do not like adversarial politics. I have never liked—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Flinders!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I also point out to the member for Flinders that it is unbecoming to interject before you have done your inaugural speech, hence how silent we were when the member for Frome was asking her questions. There were no interjections from government members, and there will not be until you have made your inaugural address and then—

An honourable member: We won’t be adversarial.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —but we will not be adversarial. Like the Premier said on election night, members opposite are not our enemies. You are not our enemies, you are just our opponents, so if you have questions, ask them and we will answer them as quickly as we possibly can.

Amendment negatived; motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT